Question about John 3:5 & salvation

[thetazlord]

For what reason do you resist this teaching? The church, east and west, has understood Jesus’s words from the beginning to mean that He desires baptism, just as He desires our repentance, just as He desires our faith-none of them are forced upon us. Baptism is intended to be our first formal profession of faith, which is why it’s called the sacrament of faith. And remember that professing our faith in Jesus is also a requirement (Rom 10:9-10), and this is done with the baptismal vows. We’re simply to obey, not argue fruitlessly over a verse or two, which admittedly can have more than one plausible meaning but which can never be perfectly resolved by personal interpretation/exegesis.

**Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. Mark 16:16

Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38**

It’s not that I’m “resisting” the teachings of the east & the west. I’m just not one to automatically believe something just because a “majority” (or even a minority) teaches it. Rather, I prefer to be like the Bereans & compare what I’m being taught to Scripture (Acts 17:10-11). And the issue I’m having trouble reconciling is that “if” the water in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism, & when I studied the Greek words from John 3:5 & John 3:7 (“Unless,” “cannot” “must”), they don’t mean only under “normative” circumstances. Rather, they mean only. So, in Greek, Jesus is saying:

"UNLESS (Except, or if not) on is born of water & the Spirit, he CANNOT (has no power to) enter the kingdom of God." (John 3:5)

"You MUST (necessary/required to) be born again." (John 3:7)

Based on the Greek, not the English, Jesus is saying that it’s not just “necessary” (under “normative” circumstances), but rather it’s “required.” Jesus gives no indication that there is any other way to “enter the kingdom of God” without being “born of water & the Spirit/born again.” So, “if” the water in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism, the Jesus is saying being baptized IN water is “required,” not “necessary” under “normal circumstances.”

So, these two verses aren’t “fruitless” since they are God-breathed Scripture. Our understanding of these passages can’t be taken to the point that our understanding contradicts what’s actually being said. And what’s being said - again, in the Greek - is that being “born of water & the Spirit” is the only way to “enter the kingdom of God.” So, again, how do these 3 groups of UNbaptized people “enter the kingdom of God” without being baptized IN water, which is “necessary” as well as “required”? That is what I’m asking that I haven’t received a satisfying answer yet.

Thank you for trying though & God bless & Merry Christmas!

 

[thetazlord]

I first of all want to than you, OP, for your calmness and politeness despite most (or in fact all) of these replies not answering your question. It is greatly appreciated.

Also, thank you for asking questions about difficult things… instead of just following the advice of the bishop, which is like sticking one’s head in the sand. That will not impress non-Catholics at all but give them a reason to not take your faith seriously.

You are right that Jesus is making a statement, but there is an implicit command in the statement. He might also say, “Unless you love others, you will not enter the kingdom of God.” It’s a statement, but he implies that he is commanding you to love IF you want to enter the kingdom of heaven.

God is not constrained by the precepts He has laid down in Judaism and the Church. In other words, it’s not like He can’t save someone unless that person is baptized… God can still do what is necessary to cleanse the person without baptism… He didn’t even have to institute baptism… but He chose to use that as a means to cleanse people of original sin and bring them into His church.

We can see this if we think say, of Catholics who might be put into a concentration camp. They are there for such a long time, they miss Mass for years, they don’t take communion for years, they don’t receive confession. God is not constrained by that–He cans till provide graces and strength to these Catholics although they are unable to receive the sacraments. God is not going to hold them accountable for what is outside their control.

Also, we can see this when Jesus tells the story of David eating the showbread.

God had said in the Torah, Keep the Sabbath, don’t eat showbread unless you are a priest… but in times of necessity He does not hold people accountable to these commands–when someone is hungry, and must choose between going hungry or eating showbread–or pork or shrimp–(for there is nothing else available) then it is not a violation of the command to eat those things.

Even though in Exodus 29.33 God says outsiders “shall not eat” the showbread.

“They [Aaron and his sons] shall eat those things with which atonement was made at their ordination and consecration, but an outsider [presumably non-priest] shall not eat of them, because they are holy.”

This is command, but David breaks this command out of necessity and Jesus (whom many consider God incarnate) does not find this problematic. He acknowledges that necessity changes the binding of some commands.

The same CAN, thought it doesn’t NECESSARILY, apply to baptism (in particular the wording of John 3.5). Just because Jesus says “must” does not mean this is absolutely necessary and NO exceptions can be made. I think that it is an error to take Jesus completely and utterly strict here, to assume that He is also taking into account the thief on the cross when He is saying “unless you are born of water and spirit.” What he is saying is indeed necessary, is indeed binding, for all people. But only to the same extent as the command of Exodus 29.33 and the showbread. When EXTRAORDINARY circumstances come into play, such as the circumstance as the thief on the cross, or a hungry David, God is not going to hold people accountable to commands they cannot keep. He releases the binding of some commands on those who are incapable of following them–like those hypothetical Catholics in the concentration camp.

Thanks for the lengthy response. And it does appear that you took some considerable time & thought in your reply. So, thank you & God bless you for that.

Although it’s true that “God is not constrained by the precepts He has laid down in Judaism and the Church,” that’s not really the issue. The issue is that the statement or command that Jesus is giving Nicodemus is a decisive one, & Jesus - being God - can’t contradict Himself. In the OT, although God didn’t want the consecrated bread to be eaten, the OT makes it clear that in extraordinary circumstances, such as when King David was malnourished & hungry, it was permissible & God didn’t strike him dead. Jesus even references OT Scripture to the Pharisees who overlooked this Scripture when rebuking His disciples for picking grain & eating on the Sabbath. So, King David & Jesus’ disciples were not actually violating any decisive command of God for doing these things, since it was obvious that God/Jesus wasn’t opposed to these things, since they were not rebuked nor struck dead. But in the case of Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus, Jesus uses explicit wording in His statement/command to Nicodemus:

"UNLESS (Except, or if not) one is born of water & the Spirit, he CANNOT (has not power to) enter the kingdom of God." (John 3:5)

"You MUST (“necessary/required to) be born again.” (John 3:7)

Jesus makes it very clear that whatever “born of water & the Spirit” & “born again” means, that there is no “exception” to “entering the kingdom of God” without being “born of water & the Spirit/born again.” Based on the Greek language of the NT in these passages, Jesus is declaring these statements with EXCLUSIVITY. There are not “extraordinary” circumstances, like in the OT with the showbread & King David. Therefore “if” the water in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism, then Jesus is declaring, without exception, that being baptized IN WATER is the only way to “enter the kingdom of God.” So, again, how do these 3 groups of people (such as the UNbaptized thief on the cross who Jesus PROMISED “Paradise/Heaven”) “enter the kingdom of God” without being baptized IN WATER?

Your response was probably the most thought out. You took really good care to respond, but it still doesn’t address the real issue of John 3:5 & John 3:7 based on the exclusive language of the original Greek. But it was a good attempt.

Merry Christmas!

 

[fhansen]

It’s not that I’m “resisting” the teachings of the east & the west. I’m just not one to automatically believe something just because a “majority” (or even a minority) teaches it. Rather, I prefer to be like the Bereans & compare what I’m being taught to Scripture (Acts 17:10-11). And the issue I’m having trouble reconciling is that “if” the water in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism, & when I studied the Greek words from John 3:5 & John 3:7 (“Unless,” “cannot” “must”), they don’t mean only under “normative” circumstances. Rather, they mean only. So, in Greek, Jesus is saying:

"UNLESS (Except, or if not) on is born of water & the Spirit, he CANNOT (has no power to) enter the kingdom of God." (John 3:5)

"You MUST (necessary/required to) be born again." (John 3:7)

Based on the Greek, not the English, Jesus is saying that it’s not just “necessary” (under “normative” circumstances), but rather it’s “required.” Jesus gives no indication that there is any other way to “enter the kingdom of God” without being “born of water & the Spirit/born again.” So, “if” the water in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism, the Jesus is saying being baptized IN water is “required,” not “necessary” under “normal circumstances.”

So, these two verses aren’t “fruitless” since they are God-breathed Scripture. Our understanding of these passages can’t be taken to the point that our understanding contradicts what’s actually being said. And what’s being said - again, in the Greek - is that being “born of water & the Spirit” is the only way to “enter the kingdom of God.” So, again, how do these 3 groups of UNbaptized people “enter the kingdom of God” without being baptized IN water, which is “necessary” as well as “required”? That is what I’m asking that I haven’t received a satisfying answer yet.

Thank you for trying though & God bless & Merry Christmas!

I never even hinted that the verses were fruitless. What I *did *say, however, was consistent with 2 Peter 3:16 & 2 Pet 1:20. You’ve demonstrated, as many before you have, that private interpretation is fruitless, that the gospel cannot be fully understood apart from the church that God established for that purpose.

 

[eddie_too]

another aspect of john 3:5 we might consider is that perhaps here Jesus is comparing His baptism to that of john’s.

john baptized with water. the Holy Spirit was not john’s to give.

so, maybe Jesus was emphasizing that it is the Spirit that gives eternal life, not simply the act of baptizing.

also, do not forget that the new testament is primarily a tool given to us to help us contemplate all that Jesus did and taught so that we might continuously grow in grace. the new testament was never intended to be a catechism.

I might add that none of us human beings have the ability to plumb completely the full depths of sacred scripture. there are levels of understanding and as we grow in the Holy Spirit a verse from sacred scripture might have meanings that we had never expected when we first encountered it.

also, the very fact that we acknowledge the existence of baptism of desire and baptism of blood should prevent us from becoming legalistic about the doctrine of baptism as a requirement of salvation. as I wrote above, none of us are qualified to claim we have plumbed the depths of every verse of sacred scripture. that is one very good reason for us to err, if we are going to err (and who does not err?), out of mercy rather than out of justice.

the Holy Spirit moves when and where He wills. even the RCC, with all of its God-given authority, can neither limit nor control the Holy Spirit.

 

[Purgatory_Pete]

Just a thought.
Perhaps we are all missing a vital point here.
You keep referring to these meanings being “Based on the Greek language” of the NT.
Did you consider that the meaning became a little blurred in translation from the Aramaic.
I have heard that this has been the case with other texts.

I must admit, I find it curious that many people today seem more concerned about things in the Bible that they don’t understand. What worries me most about scripture, are the parts that are very clear.

Hope you are enjoying Christmas day.
Pete.

 

[Cathoholic]

thetazlord. You asked:

“how” can a person "enter the kingdom of God’ without being baptized IN WATER, based on the ‘water’ in John 3:5 referring to the waters of baptism.

The answer is we don’t know.

CCC 1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.59
He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.
**The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; **
this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.”
God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism,
but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

Based “upon these verses” (John 3:3-7), we also don’t know how the Old Testament Saints who loved God so much, that the world was not worthy of them (Heb. 11:38), eventually entered Heaven without water Baptism either.

But God’s revelation isn’t merely “based upon these verses” but rather one who has authority to teach in a protected manner.

I am curious thetazlord. You said regarding Matthew 3:11 . . . .

MATTHEW 3:11 11 "I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

. . . . that “The “fire” he’s talking about it’s talking about the “fires” of Purgatory” (here).

That is an interesting response from a “Protestant”.

What Church Father, etc. makes you draw that conclusion?

It is an interesting one. And you may even be correct.

I always thought Matthew 3:11 concerned Baptism and the completion of Baptism (**Confirmation **or “Fire”), but that was my own personal thoughts too.

You seem to have an idea of that meaning too saying . . .

He’s foreshadowing the birth of the Church at Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit Who descended like “tongues of fire” & the Church began to speak in tongues (known foreign languages they didn’t speak before).

Do you know that St. John the Baptist’s Baptism was not Christian Baptism? You seem to be conflating the two (but I could go back and re-read the thread more carefully if that is NOT what you mean).

St. John the Baptist’s Baptism, was a prefigurement or foreshadowing of Christian Baptism. St. John the Baptist’s Baptism was (fittingly enough); an immediate precursor or a herald to Christian Baptism.

Merry Christmas and God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[thetazlord]

I never even hinted that the verses were fruitless. What I *did *say, however, was consistent with 2 Peter 3:16 & 2 Pet 1:20. You’ve demonstrated, as many before you have, that private interpretation is fruitless, that the gospel cannot be fully understood apart from the church that God established for that purpose.

I agree that private interpretation is fruitless. But I’m not using private interpretation. I’m pointing out that in the Greek - not my private interpretation - that Jesus is saying that a person CAN’T get into Heaven UNLESS a person is “born of water & the Spirit.” So, “if” the interpretation of ‘water’ in John 3:5 is correct, & if refers to the waters of baptism, then based on the Greek - again, not my private interpretation - then Jesus is saying a person CAN’T get into Heaven UNLESS a person is “baptized IN water.”

So, there’s no private interpretation in understanding the implication of the interpretation of what the ‘water’ means. If it means the waters of baptism, then NO ONE could “enter the kingdom of God” without being baptized IN water. So, again, “how” do these 3 UNbaptized groups of people I mentioned in the OP get into Heaven without being baptized IN water? This is what I’m asking, but unfortunately, no one is actually addressing the “actual” question I’m asking.

Thanks anyway. Hope you had a nice Christmas!

 

[thetazlord]

another aspect of john 3:5 we might consider is that perhaps here Jesus is comparing His baptism to that of john’s.

john baptized with water. the Holy Spirit was not john’s to give.

so, maybe Jesus was emphasizing that it is the Spirit that gives eternal life, not simply the act of baptizing.

also, do not forget that the new testament is primarily a tool given to us to help us contemplate all that Jesus did and taught so that we might continuously grow in grace. the new testament was never intended to be a catechism.

I might add that none of us human beings have the ability to plumb completely the full depths of sacred scripture. there are levels of understanding and as we grow in the Holy Spirit a verse from sacred scripture might have meanings that we had never expected when we first encountered it.

also, the very fact that we acknowledge the existence of baptism of desire and baptism of blood should prevent us from becoming legalistic about the doctrine of baptism as a requirement of salvation. as I wrote above, none of us are qualified to claim we have plumbed the depths of every verse of sacred scripture. that is one very good reason for us to err, if we are going to err (and who does not err?), out of mercy rather than out of justice.

the Holy Spirit moves when and where He wills. even the RCC, with all of its God-given authority, can neither limit nor control the Holy Spirit.

I agree that the NT was not meant to be a catechism, but it is the Word of God. Therefore, what it says we know that it’s not in error. And the point is that whatever “born of water & the Spirit means” - regardless of whether a person has a correct understanding of this term - Jesus is explicitly saying that if a person is not “born of water & the Spirit,” he CAN’T “enter the kingdom of God.” This literal understanding of this verse, supported by the Greek, isn’t limiting the power of the Holy Spirit, or being “legalistic,” anymore than understanding that Scripture is explicit that Jesus is God. And since Jesus is God, He can’t make an explicit statement like in John 3:5 & say that is the ONLY way, but then contradict Himself & let UNbaptized people (like the UNbaptized thief) into Heaven. Jesus letting him into Heaven wouldn’t be an act of “mercy,” but rather demonstrating that Jesus can lie, which contradicts the Word of God, which states that God can’t lie.

So, back to the issue of the OP: how can Jesus allow these 3 groups of UNbaptized people into Heaven “if” the water in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism.

Thanks for the effort & response, but it still doesn’t address my question in the OP? Hope you had a blessed Christmas!

 

[thetazlord]

Just a thought.
Perhaps we are all missing a vital point here.
You keep referring to these meanings being “Based on the Greek language” of the NT.
Did you consider that the meaning became a little blurred in translation from the Aramaic.
I have heard that this has been the case with other texts.

I must admit, I find it curious that many people today seem more concerned about things in the Bible that they don’t understand. What worries me most about scripture, are the parts that are very clear.

Hope you are enjoying Christmas day.
Pete.

Since the Gospel of John is God-breathed Scripture, then it can’t be in error, or “blurred.” That would be like saying that what God Himself says is “unclear.” And remember, John’s Gospel was written in Greek, not translated. And being raised Catholic, I was taught that the ‘water’ indeniably refers to the waters of baptism. So, “if” that is true, then we’re back to the OP.

Hope you had an enjoyable Christmas day as well!

 

[thetazlord]

thetazlord. You asked:

The answer is we don’t know.

CCC 1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.59
He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.
**The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; **
this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.”
God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism,
but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

Based “upon these verses” (John 3:3-7), we also don’t know how the Old Testament Saints who loved God so much, that the world was not worthy of them (Heb. 11:38), eventually entered Heaven without water Baptism either.

But God’s revelation isn’t merely “based upon these verses” but rather one who has authority to teach in a protected manner.

I am curious thetazlord. You said regarding Matthew 3:11 . . . .

MATTHEW 3:11 11 "I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

. . . . that “The “fire” he’s talking about it’s talking about the “fires” of Purgatory” (here).

That is an interesting response from a “Protestant”.

What Church Father, etc. makes you draw that conclusion?

It is an interesting one. And you may even be correct.

I always thought Matthew 3:11 concerned Baptism and the completion of Baptism (**Confirmation **or “Fire”), but that was my own personal thoughts too.

You seem to have an idea of that meaning too saying . . .

Do you know that St. John the Baptist’s Baptism was not Christian Baptism? You seem to be conflating the two (but I could go back and re-read the thread more carefully if that is NOT what you mean).

St. John the Baptist’s Baptism, was a prefigurement or foreshadowing of Christian Baptism. St. John the Baptist’s Baptism was (fittingly enough); an immediate precursor or a herald to Christian Baptism.

Merry Christmas and God bless.

Cathoholic

I think you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying in reference to those verses. Let me clarify:

When I brought you Purgatory, I was simply pointing out that those who believe in it (which I no longer do) believe in the fires of Purgatory that allegedly “purges” a person’s remaining sins before entering Heaven, & that according to that “belief” there are no ‘waters’ of baptism there to “cleanse” a person before entering Heaven. Water baptism is something that happens on earth - not after death.

When I was talking about John the Baptist, when he was specifically referencing Jesus who would come to baptize them with fire, it was in reference to the Hellfire. But when he speaks about the future church, it was in reference to the Holy Spirit, Who descended on the Church like "tongues of fire. So, I think there was some confusion there. Hope that clears things up.

The reason the OT saints got into Heaven without being baptized in water, was like Abraham, they were “credited righteousness” which Paul points out in his epistle to the Romans. They were faithfully living & looking forward to their coming Messiah, Who was fulfilled in the God-Man of Jesus Christ.

I also understand that the Baptist’s baptism is not the same as Jesus’ baptism. John even states this when he said, "I came to baptize with water for repentence; but there will be one [ie: Jesus Christ] Who will come to baptize you with the HOLY SPIRIT. So, I’ve always wondered - ever since I was a Catholic “why” people thought the “baptism” of the HOLY SPIRIT that Jesus echoed in Acts. Ch.1 referred to the waters of baptism. Plus, the issue still goes back to “if” the waters in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism, & since Jesus uses EXCLUSIVE wording (“UNLESS” & “CANNOT”), then “how” can a person “enter the kingdom of God” without being baptized IN water? And saying that God isn’t bound by the same sacraments He commands us doesn’t really solve the problem, because that’s like saying "Jesus says there is only ONE way to “enter the kingdom of God” - water baptism - but then saying “well, there are ‘other ways.’” That’s a contradiction that can only be avoided “if” the “water” in John 3:5 does not refer to the waters of baptism.

 

[Cathoholic]

OK thetazlord. I think I get what you are trying to say.

Your purpose of this thread is to basically deny the efficacy of being Baptized with water and the Spirit.

Is THIS what you are leading up to? The denial of the efficacy of water Baptism?

---

What do you think Jesus WAS referring to in John 3:3-7 thetazlord? How do YOU think people get to Heaven based upon John 3:3-7 thetazlord?

 

[thistle]

To thetazlord.

I am also confused about the point you are trying to make.

Are you saying that you agree that baptism is necessary for salvation?
Are you saying that in your interpretation baptism can only be achieved if water is involved and that there can therefore be no such thing as baptism of desire or baptism of blood.
This is despite the fact that Christ established The Catholic Church (he did not establish any other Church) and entrusted it with the deposit of faith and gave it authority to teach in matters of faith and morals. As teachings of the Church have the authority of God behind them then the Church cannot be in error in any of its teachings.

I notice you said in another post that you are not “interpreting” because you are stating what it says. I assume therefore that in John 6: 53-58 you agree John is talking about the Real Presence and not something symbolic.

 

[thetazlord]

To thetazlord.

I am also confused about the point you are trying to make.

Are you saying that you agree that baptism is necessary for salvation?
Are you saying that in your interpretation baptism can only be achieved if water is involved and that there can therefore be no such thing as baptism of desire or baptism of blood.
This is despite the fact that Christ established The Catholic Church (he did not establish any other Church) and entrusted it with the deposit of faith and gave it authority to teach in matters of faith and morals. As teachings of the Church have the authority of God behind them then the Church cannot be in error in any of its teachings.

I notice you said in another post that you are not “interpreting” because you are stating what it says. I assume therefore that in John 6: 53-58 you agree John is talking about the Real Presence and not something symbolic.

Let me try to clear up any confusion. After all, confusion is usually the result of the “sender” (which in this case would be me), not the “receiver” (which would be you).

Again, this post is not about “my interpretation.” In order for me to impute my interpretation into the text, I would have to assuming something that’s not explicitly stated or explicitly inferred in the text. In the case of John 3:5, I’m pointing out that Christians who “believe” that the “water” in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism, then if that is true, then - based on the Greek - Jesus would be saying that if someone is not baptized IN water, then they would not “enter the kingdom of God.” Therefore, if that is true, then that would mean that ANYONE who is not baptized IN water, would not “enter the kingdom of God.” And that would include those baptized by desire (like the UNbaptized thief on the cross who Jesus promised “Paradise/Heaven”), those baptized of blood, & those invincibly ignorant. The reason being - not because of "my interpretation - that has nothing to do with it. Rather, the natural consequence of believing that the “water” in John 3:5 referring to the waters of baptism, along with Jesus’ use of EXCLUSIVE words (“Unless” & “cannot”), as well as “must” in John 3:7, would mean that water baptism is the ONLY way to “enter the kingdom of God.”

Discussing John 6 is unrelated to the OP, & would cause an unnecessary “split.” So, let’s stay on one topic, cool?

 

[thetazlord]

OK thetazlord. I think I get what you are trying to say.

Your purpose of this thread is to basically deny the efficacy of being Baptized with water and the Spirit.

Is THIS what you are leading up to? The denial of the efficacy of water Baptism?

---

What do you think Jesus WAS referring to in John 3:3-7 thetazlord? How do YOU think people get to Heaven based upon John 3:3-7 thetazlord?

The purpose of the OP is simply to ask if the “water” in John 3:5 does indeed refer to the waters of baptism - which even many non-catholics believe too - then based on the EXCLUSIVE words of Jesus in John 3:5 & John 3:7 (“Unless,” “cannot,” “must”) then Jesus would be saying that NOBODY could enter Heaven, “unless” they were baptized IN water. Since that would be the result of believing that the “water” refers to the waters of baptism, then “how” could someone who is not baptized IN water (like those baptized by desire, baptized of blood, invincibly ignorant) “enter the kingdom of God”? Because if you believe that Jesus is referring to the waters of baptism, then how can you “also” believe that people who die who were not baptized in the waters of baptism enter Heaven? Logically, you can’t have it both ways, without contradicting the interpretation that the ‘water’ refers to the waters of baptism & Jesus’ EXCLUSIVE words in the text.

I’m not sure if it violates forum rules if I post an explanation - even with Scriptural support - that contradicts Catholic doctrine about what the “water” in John 3:5 means. I could be wrong, but I think I would need permission from a moderator. Even though you asked me directly & I would really like to answer you, I don’t want to break forum rules, or receive an infraction.

 

[thistle]

Let me try to clear up any confusion. After all, confusion is usually the result of the “sender” (which in this case would be me), not the “receiver” (which would be you).

Again, this post is not about “my interpretation.” In order for me to impute my interpretation into the text, I would have to assuming something that’s not explicitly stated or explicitly inferred in the text. In the case of John 3:5, I’m pointing out that Christians who “believe” that the “water” in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism, then if that is true, then - based on the Greek - Jesus would be saying that if someone is not baptized IN water, then they would not “enter the kingdom of God.” Therefore, if that is true, then that would mean that ANYONE who is not baptized IN water, would not “enter the kingdom of God.” And that would include those baptized by desire (like the UNbaptized thief on the cross who Jesus promised “Paradise/Heaven”), those baptized of blood, & those invincibly ignorant. The reason being - not because of "my interpretation - that has nothing to do with it. Rather, the natural consequence of believing that the “water” in John 3:5 referring to the waters of baptism, along with Jesus’ use of EXCLUSIVE words (“Unless” & “cannot”), as well as “must” in John 3:7, would mean that water baptism is the ONLY way to “enter the kingdom of God.”

Discussing John 6 is unrelated to the OP, & would cause an unnecessary “split.” So, let’s stay on one topic, cool?

So you are dismissing the authority in matters of faith and morals Christ gave to the only Church he established, i.e. the Catholic Church.
In other words when Christ’s only Church (the Catholic Church) says that there are people who can receive the graces of sacramental baptism through baptism of desire and baptism of blood you are saying the Church and Christ who fully backs the teachings of faith and morals are both wrong.

 

[Purgatory_Pete]

I’m not sure if it violates forum rules if I post an explanation - even with Scriptural support - that contradicts Catholic doctrine about what the “water” in John 3:5 means. I could be wrong, but I think I would need permission from a moderator. Even though you asked me directly & I would really like to answer you, I don’t want to break forum rules, or receive an infraction.

Since the Gospel of John is God-breathed Scripture, then it can’t be in error, or “blurred.” That would be like saying that what God Himself says is “unclear.”

That’s interesting!
I wonder (and I may be wrong) but are you here looking for an answer,
or an excuse? (That sounded mean, it’s not meant to be) just asking.

because if you genuinely believe what you state, about God-breathed Scripture not being in error, then why are you stating that John is correct but Jesus is not (or visa-versa). aren’t you yourself, proclaiming an error in scripture here?

My Bible reads thus.
John 3: 4-8 “Why, Nicodemus asked Him, how is it possible that a man be born when he is already old? Can he enter a second time into his mothers womb and so come to birth?
Jesus answered, Believe me, no man can enter into the Kingdom of God unless birth comes to him from water and from the Holy Spirit. What is born by natural birth is a thing of nature, what is born by spiritual birth is a thing of Spirit. Do not be surprised then, at
my telling thee, you must be born ANEW. The wind breathes where it will, and thou canst hear the sound of it, but knowest nothing of the way it came or the way it goes; so it is when the man be born by the breath of the spirit.”

Below this it explains: The Greek word ‘ANEW’ means ‘from above’
‘Wind or breeze’ has three meanings 1 - The breath, 2 - Breeze, 3 - Spirit , especially the Holy Spirit.

So if you take the GREEK translation ‘from above’ then it is very possible that one can be
Baptised in Purgatory ANEW. (even though you don’t believe it exists)

This Bible states at the front that it is,
(translated from the Hebrew and Greek originals).

You see bread and wine at Mass, do you believe it becomes the Blood and Body of our Lord,
even though it still has the outward appearance of bread and wine?
Christ said “This is my body which is given up for you”. but it wasn’t a loaf of bread on the cross. so did Our Lord contradicting Himself?

Do you believe that it is the water that baptises or the Spirit?

Sorry about the length of this one…

 

[Sandraaustin]

The purpose of the OP is simply to ask if the “water” in John 3:5 does indeed refer to the waters of baptism - which even many non-catholics believe too - then based on the EXCLUSIVE words of Jesus in John 3:5 & John 3:7 (“Unless,” “cannot,” “must”) then Jesus would be saying that NOBODY could enter Heaven, “unless” they were baptized IN water.

I’m not sure if it violates forum rules if I post an explanation - even with Scriptural support - that contradicts Catholic doctrine about what the “water” in John 3:5 means. I could be wrong, but I think I would need permission from a moderator. Even though you asked me directly & I would really like to answer you, I don’t want to break forum rules, or receive an infraction.

Really? All this and you already have your own answer, ready to post, which coincidentally contradicts Catholic teaching. I was wondering why you kept rejecting all the perfectly logical answers people took their time to explain to you, and I was wondering why you repeatedly kept saying “IN (all caps) water.”

I hope they let you post it, I’m sure it’s nothing groundbreaking. Sorry if I’m sounding slightly annoyed with what seems to be a fake question.

Edited to add: Why so concerned about breaking forum rules? Just lay it out and ask “what about this?” That’s what the apologetics forum is for.

 

[fred_conty]

I had a question about John 3:5 & the “water” Jesus is referring to:

"Unless one is born of water & the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

When I was being raised Catholic, I was taught that the water refers to the waters of baptism, which means that John 3:5 could just as easily be read:

"Unless one is baptized in water & the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

This seems to be Cardinal Arinze’s understanding in this video (starting about 01:15):

youtube.com/watch?v=gkHsl8hl4yo

I was also taught those who didn’t have the opportunity to be baptized, but who would had the desire, but died before they could, were exempt from this & could enter Heaven, like those “baptized by desire” (like the thief on the cross) & those “baptized of blood” (like martyrs). I was also taught that this exemption would also apply to those “invincibly ignorant” (like those in foreign countries who never heard of Jesus or baptism, & therefore couldn’t be baptized).

My question is if these people can get into Heaven without being baptized in water, then wouldn’t that contradict the belief that the water in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism?

"Unless one is born of water (baptized in water) & the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God"

I was told that Jesus isn’t bound by the same commands He gives us. But upon reading John Ch.3, Jesus isn’t making a “command,” but rather answering Nicodemus question (“How can one be born again?”) from Jesus’ previous statement (“Unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”) Jesus seems to be making a statement on “how” a person “enters the kingdom of God” - being “born again,” or being “born of water & the Spirit.” He’s not actually giving a command. So, since Jesus is making a statement, not giving a command, then “how” can Jesus allow these three groups of people mentioned above (including the thief on the cross) into Heaven without being baptized in water, & without contradicting Himself in John 3:5, 'if" the water refers to the waters of baptism?

Don’t worry, I’m not looking for a debate. I’m just looking for an answer to my question. I even asked this question to the former bishop of the diocese of my former church, & after going back & forth, he said that he couldn’t really give me an answer, & to “just have faith.” That reply didn’t really sit well with me, so I thought I’d ask it here. Hopefully, I’ll get an answer that is based on the specific question I’m asking. Because so far, I’ve gotten nothing, & would really appreciate a satisfying answer, particularly since this verse has to do with salvation.

In the meantime, Merry Christmas to all, & remember the reason for the season - JESUS!

God bless,
thetazlord

St. John the Baptist baptized with water only, as a sign of one’s repentence. This means leveling the hills and filling in the valleys of their own life, so that they would have a straight and even road to God. This baptism was only one of cleaning up one’s life.

St. John the Evangelist is in contrast to St. John the Baptist’s baptism with that of Christ’s. For Christ’s baptism is not only that of John the Baptist’s of getting rid of sin, but also of receiving the Holy Spirit, who now resides in the soul. So that a man, with Christ’s baptism, is now born again of God, that is of the Holy Spirit who now lives(is born) in him.

Any other way of being baptised is another thing and is not treated in John 3, for he is only answering a question of Nicodemus. Other types of baptisms are answered by the church.

 

[Cathoholic]

I ask you this:

What do you think Jesus WAS referring to in John 3:3-7 thetazlord? How do YOU think people get to Heaven based upon John 3:3-7 thetazlord?

You answer this:

Again, this post is not about “my interpretation.” In order for me to impute my interpretation into the text, I would have to assuming something that’s not explicitly stated or explicitly inferred in the text.

Then you try to infer “water” doesn’t really mean “water” . . . .

. . . and you want the readers of this thread to think you are not “imputing your interpretation into the text”?

It sounds like this is “all about your interpretation” despite you declaring “this post is not about “my interpretation.””

Or are you saying something else here thetazlord?

 

[thetazlord]

So you are dismissing the authority in matters of faith and morals Christ gave to the only Church he established, i.e. the Catholic Church.
In other words when Christ’s only Church (the Catholic Church) says that there are people who can receive the graces of sacramental baptism through baptism of desire and baptism of blood you are saying the Church and Christ who fully backs the teachings of faith and morals are both wrong.

I’m not attempting to question the authority of the Church that Christ established on earth. Not at all. Let me ask you these question:

Do you believe the words of Jesus Himself Who stated “UNLESS one is born of water & the Spirit, he CANNOT enter the kingdom of God”? And “you MUST be born again (ie: born of water & the Spirit)”?
Do you believe the Greek definition of the words “UNLESS” that means “Except, or if not” & “CANNOT” that means “has no power to”? And “MUST” that not only means “necessary,” but more specifically “required”?

If so, then if you believe the words of Jesus, as well as the definition of these words in the original Greek of the God-breathed NT, then “if” the “water” refers to the waters of baptism, then do you also accept that John 3:5 means:

“UNLESS (except, if not) one is born of water (baptized IN water) & the Spirit, he CANNOT (has no power to) enter the kingdom of God”?

If so, then based on Jesus’ EXCLUSIVE words (“Unless” & “cannot”), as well as “must” in John 3:7, then “how” can you also believe that an UNbaptized person can “enter the kingdom of God” without being baptized IN water? That’s like saying, “I believe that Jesus is God, because Jesus STATES that He is” (John 8:58, cf. Exodus 3:14; John 10:30-33; John 1:1,14; etc), but then in the same breath say “well, other people who call themselves ‘Christian’ or even ‘Catholic’ might not believe that Jesus is God, so they are still Christians/Catholics, since they worship Jesus as their Savior & Lord, just not God.”

I don’t know how you can believe both (Jesus says you MUST be baptized IN water (born of water & the Spirit) to enter the kingdom of God AND believe that a person can enter the kingdom of God without being baptized IN water? Please explain how you can believe both. Thank you & God bless.